1) Corporate Social Responsibility until bankruptcy: The newest trend in the corporate world is 'corporate social responsibility'. This includes the designaton of employees within companies to help the local communities through charitable giving. We are all too-used to this now. Corporations are becoming bloated U.N-like NGOs, and forgetting their original goal: to make a decent product. It turns out many of the recent bankrupt corporations, such as Washington Mutual, and struggling ones such as GM have invested billions of dollars over the years in charity. Now we, the people the charity was for, are supposed to bail them out. What if they had been truly responsible and invested that money in R& D or saved it for a rainy day?

2) How they think: Analyzing leftism through an Israeli lens and the Mumbai massacre (attached photo collage included): In the wake of the Mumbai attacks a series of strangely homogenous opeds appeared in the Israeli press. It makes one wonder how exactly the leftist intellectual thinks and what things bind him to her fellow man?

3) One by one: the fate of minorities in the East and the media in the West: A recent murder of more Yazidis in Iraq, and the murder of a Jew in Yemen, by their 'religion of peace' practicing neighbors brings to light the trust about why minorities disappear in the Muslim world. They don't always suffer genocide, sometimes it is the slow genocide of one murder at a time. All of these murders are, of course, obscured and excused by the western media, which collaborates, apparently unknowingly, with the Islamic terrorist in its goal to rid the world of non-Muslims.

4) Shoe throwing and hypocrisy: The slightly comical shoe throwing 'incident' in Baghdad should probably be ignored and forgotten. It has received such coverage that it deserves at least a few lines of comment. The incident shows the true nature of Arab-Islamic hypocrisy and the true reason that dictatorship and democracy do not coexist well.

Corporate Social Responsibility is one of the most exciting new trends in the business world. It employs tens of thousands of people, legions of new departments at corporations devoted to helping communities and doling out corporate philanthropy. These slush funds of goodness are making corporate titans and white collar workers feel good about themselves. Academics describe a new view of the corporation that is no longer merely accountable to its customers and shareholders, but now it is accountable to its stakeholders; the community and the environment.

As corporations transform themselves into NGOs and charities, taking up new responsibilities the communities around them become dependent on the corporation, the way they were once dependant on some NGO or the government for largesse and welfare. But sometimes this new fangled system of corporate welfare fails miserably. What happens when the corporation focuses so much time on cutting ribbons at new community centers and giving out blankets to the homeless that it neglects its underlying Raison d'être, namely to provide a product for the market, and drives itself into bankruptcy?

This is precisely what has happened with Washington Mutual. Kerry Killinger and his lieutenants at Washington Mutual spent a great deal of time doling out money and caring for the community, but they seem to have spent less time auditing the mortgages they were servicing and underwriting. As reported in the The Seattle Times on September 29th, 2009, "Whether it's high-profile events such as the fireworks show over Lake Union, called the WaMu Family 4th, prominent charities such as United Way or lesser-known groups, the Seattle thrift was one of the region's most prominent givers."

Seattle was the center of the WaMu welfare universe. Peter Donnelly of the ArtsFund noted that WAMU was a "company which is headquartered [in Seattle] and which the senior leadership is living in the town and feeling part of the community." WaMu spent its donations primarily on affordable-housing and education. According to reports, in 2007, these causes received $33.6 million of the $48.6 million given by the company to charities. It was the fourth largest corporate donor to United Way, with its employees giving some $2.1 million. Now those out of work employees might wish they had saved that money for hard times. WAMU isn't the only bank to have spent heavily on charities. JPmorgan Chase gave away $114 million.

General Motors, which is now begging the U.S government for a taxpayer funded bailout, gives away some $50 million a year. Business Week, which published details on corporate giving quotes GM's philanthropic mission statement; "GM's philanthropic and community relations mission is to ensure that we maintain our position as a valued and responsible corporate citizen through activities that improve the quality of life in our communities and are consistent with our business goals and objectives." Unfortunately for taxpayers it might have been better if GM had focused on making cars that people wanted to buy rather than on being a "responsible corporate citizen." GM is now requesting billions of dollars from the U.S taxpayer, far more money than it ever doled out to charities.

What if these corporations had invested all this largesse and the salaries of their 'giving managers' into Research and Development? Imagine WAMU's $48 million of charitable giving spread out over ten years and invested each year into due diligence at making sure their borrowers were sound and their loans would be repaid? Imagine if GM had invested its $50 million a year over a twenty year period in R & D to develop fuel efficient cars. Wouldn't that have been more responsible socially, to the taxpayer, than throwing the money at causes where most of the money gets sucked up into administrative expenses of the charities anyway?

The problem with corporations transforming themselves into philanthropies and taking up responsibility for their communities is that this mission creep takes them away from their primary goal: to make a good product and sell it. By making superior products corporations are able to employ more people and those people are part of the community. By making a superior product and being nimble in the marketplace the corporation provides returns for its investors and they in turn provide liquidity to the local marketplace. But when the corporation spreads out, like an octopus, and takes on responsibilities once held by local churches and charities, it does not focus on its business model, it becomes staid and sometimes it goes bankrupt. Then, with tens of thousands of its employees out of works and factory towns transformed into ghost towns, one must ask: 'how responsible was the corporation that forgot its central reason for existence.' We don’t want churches going into business and we don't want NGOs trying to make profits, we realize that this deviation from the central function of these organizations will harm their goals and pervert their message, yet we feel that it is logical to create a new corporate model where the corporation is 'responsible' to the community through becoming a miniature NGO. But the corporation is most responsible when it is profitable and it is employing more and more people year after year and providing their homes and families with an income. Corporate Social responsibility may seem hard to argue with but the recent crises has shown that sometimes it can be height of irresponsibility.

How they think: Analyzing leftism through an Israeli lens and the Mumbai massacreNovember 31, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

It is important to understand always how leftist intellectuals think because it is the source of their thoughts, their callous calumny, that is responsible for brainwashing, for re-writing history, for revisionism, for Nazism (it was, in the end, an intellectual movement), Communism, Holocaust denial, Islamic genocide denial, Armenian genocide denial, UN loving, and various other forms of degrading hatefulness passed off as 'scientific' and 'intelligent.' Intellectualism is the realm of the left. Those who pretend that it can be included in the qualities that a conservative or right thinking individual have it wrong. Today's secular world produced the intellectual, the idea that there are philosopher-kings and men of merit and scholars is past, today intellectualism murders mankind twice, first through real murder and second through excusing that murder.

One place to analyze how leftist intellectuals think is in Israel. In Israel the intellectual class is made up of people primarily of a German-Jewish background and certainly of an Ashkenazi European-Jewish background. Their ancestors came to Israel mostly between 1900 and 1939 although some of them are more recent additions to the Israeli fabric. Their way of life is one of secularism. They have no values and they do not have very many children. They live behind fences and in gated communities where they are isolated from the world outside. Their spiritual center is Europe and they decorate their house with European tastes and pretend to know European wines in order to impress their friends. Their discourse is European. They have no national pride or pride in their heritage and theirs is the life of loving whatever thing tells them they have no heritage. They worship their homogeneity in secret but in public they try to pretend to embrace 'diversity' through having their pictures taken with a few token Asians and blacks and other colored people. In fact most intellectuals try to pretend to know something about other 'cultures' as part of their attempt to 'one up' their friends about who knows the 'tribal norms of' some obscure group in some obscure place. They never die in terror attacks because their wealthy lifestyle affords them protections from such inconveniences. When they do die they prefer cremation, lest any memory of them be left behind in this world that they hated and disdained so much. As 'citizens of the world' and members of 'humanity' they prefer that their ashes will drift endlessly around the world clogging the pores of patriotic heritage-loving people.

Originality is one of those odd things that intellectual leftists worship. They all want to be original but it escapes them for some reason. But what is most funny is to see the extreme shallowness of their 'original' ideas. Exhibit A is an attached photo collage of the covers of recent anti-Israel books. Each one uses the same image, of the 'Seperation fence'. Each one claims to be original and 'a lone voice'. But they are all the same, marching in lockstep with no originality between them. Probably exhibit B in understanding this would be Haaretz on Monday, December 1st, 2008.

The editorial of Haaretz itself, unsigned and written by the editor or his staff, was entitled "A little modesty wouldn't hurt." The editorial claimed that "to our regret these obligatory reactions [of sorrow] were accompanied by shrill voices that emitted an odious scent of patronization and by baseless populous declarations." The article went on to list a series of Israeli officials and Israeli failures such as the Pollard affair, the Ma'alot massacre of 1974 (when 22 Israeli schoolchildren were murdered by Muslim terrorists in the midst of a rescue operation), the 1977 attempt to reswcue hostages in the Savoy hotel in Tel Aviv that ended in eight dead civilians (murdered by Muslim terrorists), the 1994 death of Nachson Wachsman at the hands of Muslim terrorists and the continuing captivity of Gilad Schalit at the hands of Muslims. According to this oped "relations between Israel and India withstood a test during the tragic events in Mumbai….terrorist attacks are a cause of sorrow and rage, not for arrogant statements and impossible ideas." The article did not use the word Muslim or note that it was Muslims who murdered Jews in all these cases, this word was inserted by the author. This oped was followed, on the same page mind you, by one by Anshel Pfeffer, entitled 'Stop Offending India.' Pfeffer complained that "the chorus of those who were once somebody in security, quick to harshly criticize Indian security…is liable to do serious damage to a vital strategic relationship…the statements here [in India] are seen as an insult, a blow to national pride and are especially galling coming from a country that has not always succeeded in saving its own people who were held hostage. The Indians are also angry that the Israelis are focusing solely on the attack on Chabad House and the Israeli and Jewish victims who were killed there, while ignoring [the rest]…as of yesterday the Indian government had not officially responded to the Israeli criticism…the anger over Israeli boastfulness will keep these ties [between the countries] hidden from view." Before parsing this second oped we need to go on to a third one. That’s right, a third open on the same day in the same paper on the exact same subject. It is by Yossi Sarid and entitled "of turkeys and Indians." He writes "we, just 7 million and our hubris is legendary…we have already begun our armchair quarterbacking…it would not have happened to us. Our rescue operations are always successful: at the school in Ma'a lot, in Kiryat Shmona [the Kuntar terror attack], Nachshon Wachsman…Gilad Schalit….was or wasn't the Chabad house chosen as a target ahead of time…Ehud Olmert acted with restraint this time, he refrained from calling his Indian counterpart. That's what happens when [your brain works] unimpeded, and your mental powers are at their fullest. We've had it with egoists, with the Israel arrogance."

Three editorials. One newspaper. One day. The exact same message, the same wording even and the same examples. And each surely thinks they are being original, that they are the 'lone voice' critiquing their country and 'daring' to stand up and 'say what needs to be said.' Surely each thinks they are a 'prophet' in the dark saying something 'controversial.' Its like Newspeak in 1984, someone can call banal behaviour originality so long as we are all forced to read it and believe it is original because it is in an 'intellectual' newspaper.

Intellectualsim is brutal. Here one has 200 dead civilians in India. A Muslim terror attack that targeted westerners and Jews. And intellectualism speaks of 'obligatory' sorrow, as if the intellectual in his high mindedness would'nt naturally feel sorrow but is 'obligated' to. No one is obligating you Mr. Bourgouise. You don't have to shed fake tears for other humans, we know you are above humanity. But intellectuals have an odd way of interpreting things. The same people who always get whipped up into a frenzy about 'free speech' and yet here they are telling 'armchair' quarterbacks and former security officials to be quiet and wondering why the Indian government doesn't respond. Why would it respond to the opinions of civilians voiced on the Television of some small country, far away? Who is being arrogant in this equation, the leftist intellectual who believes that the Indian government should respond to one Israeli former security official who said something on TV in Israel in Hebrew, or the guy who just voiced his opinion? Who is being arrogant, the leftist intellectual who says that this criticism will ruin ties between India and Israel or the guy who simply said a few words about how the Indian operation could have been done better? Why do intellectuals, in one case say that the Chabad house might not have been a target, a ludicrous idea considering Mumbai has 23 million people. But the same intellectuals who blame their people for everything and believe their people are the most arrogant people in the world and react to terror in a foreign land by blaming their country and casting hate on their countrymen, they can't fathom that when their own people are clearly targeted that it might be on purpose. Such is how an intellectual thinks. Then the intellectual claims it is wrong for his own countrymen to care mostly for their own dead among the casualties. The same intellectual who was callous about the dead and said it was 'obligatory' to show fake sorrow claims it is wrong to mourn one's own people who were targeted by Muslims in a far off land. If Indian Hindus were one of many targets of terror in Tel Aviv and India focused on them would there be any reason to expect something different? And why does the intellectual think it is positive that Ehud Olmert did not immediately call his counterpart to express sorrow and support? The same intellectuals who claim some TV interviews will ruin relations between two nations celebrates when a prime minister, an actual representative of the government, does nothing.

There is something perverted and odd about intellectuals. Their reaction is always self hate. But what we usually refer to as 'self hate' is not actually correct. Its not that they hate themselves. They love themselves because among eachother they all agree. At their garden parties they sip wine and they all agree that they hate the country they live in, they hate the culture of the people in the country they live, they hate their heritage and their birthplace and everything about the country to which they are citizens. They don't hate themselves, their self is not part of the larger self of the nation. The nation is the other to their selves. Intellectuals consider themselves 'citizens of humanity' and it is thus. They are not part of countries and yet they enjoy the freedoms given them by their democracies, they enjoy the money they receive from the newspaper who can only exist due to the free press. They enjoy the infrastructure provided by the taxpayers among the countrymen they hate. Its not self hate or self-critique, they never criticize themselves or hate their own caste. They love themselves and worship their group. They simply hate that which feeds them.

Intellectuals hate us, they hate society, they make fun of dead murdered people, they obscure those who murdered them by never naming the group to which the killers belong and they only show 'obligatory' sorrow, not genuine sorrow, they have no feelings or emotions or humanity, they are not, in truth, human in any sense of the word, and their callousness in the face of death is worse than the Muslim terrorists for the Muslim terrorists know they are killing, they just say it is in the name of god, whereas the intellectual denies the very existence of the murdered person by having no genuine sympathy and denying him his justice by obscuring his attacker. The reaction of the intellectual is always to heap hatred and scorn on his own country and its people. There will be a time in the future, when Islam has conquered the world, where intellectuals will no longer exist. We will be rid of them once and for all. For this we can say that Islam will bring a lasting decency to this world for it will rid of us this class that sits around our necks like an albatross and from which we in a secular democracy cannot free ourselves because they are products of secularism and democracy guarantees them freedom and life. But Islam does not and in Muslim societies there are no intellectuals. That can, at least, be applauded.

One by one: the fate of minorities in the East and the media in the WestDecember 15th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

Another day, another dead minority in a Muslim country. Today it was seven Yazidis, a father, mother and four children shot to dead in their home by the religion of tolerance and peace. Islam came for these seven Yazidis, just as it comes everyday for some lonely minority in some Muslim country. In early December of 2008 a man shot a Yemenite Jew, one of only 400 in the country, after demanding he convert to Islam.

Everyday that the religion of tolerance exists, in whatever country it exists in, people must die because of it. There is not a day that a non-Muslim is not murdered by Muslims somewhere in the Muslim world or in countries where Muslims live. This is the slow 'one by one drip drip' of how Islam works and why minorities slowly vanish from Muslim countries. We see it in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran and Iraq. One by one the minorities are killed, raped or forced to flee. We watch it in Gaza with the remaining Christians. One day a church is bombed, then a school, then a bookstore, then a restaurant. We see it in Lebanon where every bombing has been directed at Christians in a Christian neighbourhood. One by one, day by day.

But there is a collaborator in all this and it is the Western media. The Western media aids and abets he murder, the genocide, he ethnic-cleansing and the terrorism by either ignoring the killings or by providing 'explanations' for them. In the article published on December 15th, describing the murder of the Yazidis the BBC reports that "some Muslims have accused them of being devil-worshippers, since they revere an angel in the form of a blue peacock. It is a charge the Yazidis reject.A number of attacks against Yazidis in recent years have been blamed on al-Qaeda in Iraq which views them as infidels." Read this again. The BBC tries to pretend that it is only 'explaining' what Muslims think about Yazidis. But it uses the word 'devil-worshiper' and 'infidel' and it then makes fun of he Yazidis by repeating the myth that they worship a peacock.

We take this kind of reporting for granted today because we have been brainwashed in the West to believe that the role of the media is not to report what happens but to report 'both sides'. Let us imagine that such a media existed during the Holocaust. Then the BBC would report "Six million Jews have died in the last four years in Germany. Germans believe Jews are sub-human and that they caused the Great depression and that Jews are responsible for all wars. Jews deny this charge. A number of the killings of Jews have been blamed on Nazis who view them as deserving to be extinct." This would be the BBC's reporting of the Holocaust. But we can imagine how the BBC might report a lynching in the American south "a number of black men have been found hung from trees lately. Some whites believe these blacks were uppity negroes and Communist agitators and are thus putting them in their place. It is a charge the blacks reject. The KKK has been blamed for some attacks on blacks recently, who they view as sub-human."

Terrrorism and genocide exist in this world but they exist alongside a Western media that supports them and aids and abets them. The Western media in the form of the BBC aids racism and the extermination of minorities.

It is important, the next time that terrorism strikes a European city, that we remember how the BBC reported the deaths of these Yazidis. Remember it and when terrorists blow up some British people we can say "some British people died today. Some Muslims believe the British are immoral people who have no faith. It is a charge the British reject. Al Quaeda has been blamed for attacks on the British who they view as infidels." That is right. If the Yazidis deserve death at the hands of Islam and deserve to have it covered up by the European media than we cannot say that we will have any sympathy when terrorism comes to Europe, because Europeans have classified weak and marginal minorities as 'devil worshipers' and 'infidels' and repeated slander against them.

The European media is the primary voice of terrorism in the world, the greatest collaborator with it, even more so than any Muslim media outlet. When the media encourages the terrorist by reporting his 'allegations' and excusing his murder then it is as if he media is a terrorist organization, a terrorist of he mind, polluting our language and brainwashing us. Drip drip drip, the minorities disappear and the media leads them to their deaths and disappears their history. It is no surprise that Europe is the same continent where they soon will no longer teach the Holocaust, lest it offend their Muslim minority. That is fine. Maybe they should report the 'two sides' to the Holocaust. Who cares? Europe digs its own grave and it must lie down in it.

Shoe throwing and hypocrisyDecember 16th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

The incident in Iraq where an Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, threw a shoe at President Bush is being celebrated throughout the Arab world, and probably in many other countries such as Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. The New York Times deemed it an "act of defiance" even though they explained its 'context' by noting that it runs counter to "Arab traditions of hospitality" and that "hitting someone with a shoe is a deep insult…signifying the person is as low as dirt…calling someone a dog is universally harsh, among Arabs, who traditionally consider dogs unclean." The television station that employs Mr. al-Zaidi has claimed that he was exercising his 'free speech' and practicing the 'democracy' that Bush had brought to Iraq. But the shoe throwing and the claims that it is part of 'free speech' say much about the way in which 'democracy' is perceived today by the world and says much about another Arab tradition; hypocrisy.There is a new belief in the West that everything is free speech and that especially offensive speech is not only free but to critique such speech is unacceptable. Furthermore the idea of free speech has suffered from a degree of 'mission creep' as it has come to mean that people cannot be censured for outlandish speech by their employers, such as Universities, governments or NGOs. Think of the paper presented in the Shane Working papers of Hebrew University that claimed that Israeli soldiers don't rape Palestinian women because they are racist, implying that if they had been good tolerance lovers like the Nazis who raped Jewish women that would be more positive. Any critique of the Sociology department for awarding the writer of the paper was dismissed as being 'anti-free speech'. When the Oxford union invited David Irving, the holocaust denier, and when Columbia invited Ahmadinjed, any who critiqued them were said to be 'anti-free speech'. When Joel Kovel was denied a publishing contract for his extremist book 'confronting Zionism' he claimed his 'free speech' was violated. When a writer who serves on the governing board of the JDC supported the Thai government's decision to execute two Jews based on drug trafficking charges, a complaint directed at the organization resulted in a response that in "Israel there is free speech." Free speech is the lie of modernity. It is the lie that says people have a right to say whatever they want and never suffer economic consequences for it, it is the lie that says dictators have a 'right' to speak at Columbia and hate mongers have a 'right' to be published. So too, apparently, the Arabs have learned that free speech has no bounds, so when a journalist throws a shoe at a head of state his employer refuses to apologize saying the journalist has 'free speech'. The second issue raised by the behavior of al-Zaidi is the way in which dictatorship works to undermine democracy and the way in which it exploits the freedom of other societies through its hypocrisy. No Cuban would dare throw a shoe at Castro. No Egyptian can throw a shoe at Mubarek. No Syrian can throw a shoe at Asad. But in all these countries the people celebrate that a man threw a shoe at President Bush. Would any American celebrate if a reporter from the New York Times threw a shoe at King Hussein or Ahmadinjed? It is part of the lie that is hypocrisy. Liberals speak of 'Arab hospitality' but one has seen the real hospitality of these countries displayed in their reactions to this insult. One has seen how the dictatorships celebrate this act by putting the journalists face and television and describing him as a hero for his 'defiance'. The same 'defiance' of the Egyptian regime by bloggers results in prison sentences. It is interesting how the rhetoric and lies of defiance reverberates throughout the world. We see it in Cuba and all the rest of the Communist regimes that have resurrected succession by patriarchal lineage. That’s right, good liberal progressive communism, has son succeed father and brother succeed brother. It’s a family affair under Communism. And Communism is the regime that my hippie liberal secular teachers in high school told us was so romantic and Cuba was a 'utopia' where "there is no Aids and health care is better than America." There is no Aids because Aids patients were rounded up and put in leper colonies. That’s the liberal way, just like having a brother take over power from his brother is the liberal way. Just like dictatorship for 50 years in Cuba is he 'progressive' way. Its very progressive, dictatorship, because it is the future of the world. Because our media terms it 'defiance' to throw shoes at people and because under the dictatorship the people support such 'defiance' even if they would never do it to their own regime. Dictatorship and democracy cannot coexist because the one uses the other's freedom to undermine it. In the dictatorship everyone loves the dictator. In the democracy some of the people love the dictatorship next door and because the dictatorship has no freedom of speech the liberal people in the democracy, the intellectuals and educated people, believe the propaganda of the dictatorship about its 'free health care' and 'lack of AIDs'. Thus the best and brightest people in the democracy come to hate their own democracy and worship the other. When there is dictatorship next to democracy the dictatorship shall always win. Democracy and is success in the world is a myth. It is not a successful system and it is one that is prone to accept that 'free speech' means requiring people to listen to hate speech and the speech of dictators.

1) Its funny to think: The dark news from Europe, the stories o more minarets, more Shariah law, and more Khaffiyeh wearing extremists, is beginning to take the form of a large joke, a sort of joke on humanity, 'progress' and civilization. Its especially funny considering two recent news items; that Hamas removes Khaffiyas from the necks of European activists in Gaza because they perceive the symbol as supporting Fatah and that the film Whatever Lola Wants, which romanticizes belly dancing, will also not be shown in Gaza, but will be cheered wholeheartedly by western audiences yearning for the 'exotic'.

2) Why the women leave: The news reports of dead women found in various countries never end. Sex slaves tossed aside like garbage, 'cocktail waitresses' murdered in Japan, nurses beheaded in Saudi, 13 year old rape victims in Somalia stoned to death by courageous men. The slaughter of women is at an all time high. In the UK they admit to 'losing' 2000 women a year from the school system, most forced into marriage. In Pakistan special graveyards are designated for the anonymous victims of honour killings. We see once again that whereas the Islamic society murders women and it is accepted, that in the Western and secular society women are also disappeared, sold and trafficked and crushed beneath the boot of modernity. But why? Why does secularism and freedom for women also lead to the murder and enslavement of so many of them, just as in the Islamist society?

3) Europe and the concept of Justice: The recent release of another member of the "Red Army Faction', a leftist group of German terrorists from the 1970s, reminds us of the central concept of European 'justice'. They are released because they are not perceived to be a threat to society. For the same reason aging Nazis were long ago released. European justice does not seek retribution. Worst of all it does not recognize that the victims of these people were denied their right to life, and that therefore the murderer should also be denied his freedom. Europeans speak of a 'proportionate' response. There is nothing more disproportionate than letting a murderer run free who has taken the lives of others.

Its funny to thinkDecember 27th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

It funny to think that in Gaza people who wear black and white checkered Khaffiyas have them removed by the police and are questioned. That is Hamas justice. The newest ‘exotic’ movie to come out of North Africa, ‘Whatever Lola Wants’ includes an hour of a white teenage American girl shaking her breasts and buttocks for crowds of men as part of her ‘belly dancing training’ where she ‘frees her mind’ and ‘comes to know her body.’ But there are some people who won’t be going to this degrading film; Islamists. It is a strange world where the Hamas loving Islamic terrorist won’t countenance the terror-supporting khaffiyah but the blond haired-blue eyed woman from the U.K will proudly wear it in Jerusalem and wax poetic about ‘Al Khalil’ the “real name of Hebron”, while she lectures some Palestinian girl on how that girl is “not sufficiently nationalistic, you learned Hebrew, that language of oppression.” It is a strange world where one can only count on the Islamist to remove the symbol of terrorism, the Khaffiyeh, and where one can only rely on the white European to wear that khaffiyeh, even at a restaurant in Jerusalem recently renovated after being bombed by one of those very Khaffiyeh wearing terrorists.

Let me speak clearly. The woman from the U.K wears the symbol that supports the terror that blew up Restobar on Gaza Street causing blood to flow down the street. The Hamas government of the Gaza strip takes that Khaffiyeh from around the neck of the same surprised blue eyed white girl and explains “not around here.” The European gushes with enthusiasm and crowds up to see the ‘cultural’ masterpiece of some white teenage girl gyrating her breasts for men to watch and the white Europeans say “oh, this is an expression of an ancient fertility ritual from the Middle East.” But the actual resident of the Middle East, except for some French speaking elites in Tunis, don’t go to see this degrading movie.

Why is it that Islam makes more sense than western civilization and liberalism? Why is it that Islamism is so rarely contradictory. It is strait. It likes terrorism, so long as it is its terrorism. It won’t allow belly dancing to be passed of as some ‘ancient cultural ritual that empowers women.’ It tells it like it is: “Belly dancing is a western import, invented by western women, it is a dirty immoral display of female nudity and corrupts men and women who are exposed to it.” Western liberalism would like to jam ‘oriental dance’ down the throat of Islam, forcing it to ‘admit’ that its part of Middle Eastern culture. But its not. Belly Dancing is only ‘Middle Eastern’ in the sense that strip clubs are ‘western’. Both arose for the same reason: to give men a place to go and smoke a pipe and pay a few coins to watch women disgrace themselves in the nude so the men may enjoy themselves. Is a tripper, on her hands and knees, shaking her thong in a man’s face practicing an ‘ancient fertility ritual’? Not really. She doesn’t get pregnant very often with those clients, so we can’t really say she is ‘fertile’. She reminds the man of sex, so in that sense she is encouraging his instinctual desire to impregnate something. But liberalism would twist it all around so we can’t figure out what is an ancient part of our culture and what is just a bunch of sleazy immorality.

There is something funny about watching Minarets arise over European cities and watching those leftist-khaffiyeh-wearing Israel-hating-Europeans supporting the rise of this religion in their midst. There is something funny about watching European women with their unkempt hair and their ‘African’ necklaces championing the cause of separate swimming at public pools and at parks for men and women. Only liberalism would support the very thing that it spent between 1850 and 1950 trying to make us get rid of. At the very point where the last social clubs will be forced to integrate men and women one will find that Islam will come along and save them, under the auspices of culture, so that they can remain 'males only', lest the Muslim men be offended. The slaughtering of sheep and other animals for Muslims, Halal butchery, is being brought to the same Europe where some people wish to bar Jews from Kosher butchery. So Islam will save the Jews dietary habits. The Europeans will soon no longer have to recall their history of genocide, the Holocaust, also thanks to Islam which finds learning about the Holocaust ‘offensive’. That is good. Europeans shouldn't have to learn about their own history. They can read Ibn Khaldun’s The Mugaddinah, his masterpiece of ‘world’ history. Europeans hated the Jews and gave them little, but it is good to see them bending over backwards for their most recent arrivals. The European, who never wore a Star and David on his arm, wears the Khaffiyeh around his neck and it is ‘cool’. The Jews were not cool enough for Europe. Islam is cool.

There is something funny about the knowledge that Shariah law is now legal in England and beating one’s wife is now judged in a special Shariah court. There is just something funny about European schools going over to Halal diets for the children. There is something funny about the fact that Amsterdam has legal prostitution and drug use and is 20% Muslim Islamist. Its sort of like a nightmare come true: sex slavery and Islamism, all in one city. Its nice to see gay activists supporting Islamism. Its funny to watch halter top wearing bra-less European women in their miniskirts marching for Islam. Its funny to watch it all because its all just a big joke.

No two civilizations were made for eachother more in history than the European and the Muslim. European men are becoming homosexual at about the same rate that Muslim men in Europe desire polygamy. Could anything fit more closely except a continent of same sex relationship loving males, abandoned women, and polygamous Muslims?

What is still funny to think about is my memories of that European 22 year old white woman, scampering off to her house in the Shuafat refugee camp in the West Bank to meet her curfew, she doesn’t want to offend those Muslim sensibilities, wearing that khaffiyeh and declaring that she was “wants to live in a traditional Arab village but close enough to Jerusalem so I can go to bars in West Jerusalem.” The European. They are such funny people. They will wear that khaffieyh in the West Bank to show their support for the ‘resistance’, they will encourage nationalism among Palestinians, they go with that khaffiyeh to some bar in Jewish Tel Aviv, a bar that has been blown up by terrorists, and the European doesn’t think of the offense that they cause, or they enjoy the idea that they are "exercising their rights by wearing it, showing the Israelis that I support the Palestinians and am proud of it.” The European. When one knows the smirk on the Europeans face when the European hears about terrorism in other countries, the lack of empathy for other peoples who suffer from the terror the European supports, when one thinks of it they almost wish terror upon Europe, they almost look forward to watching Europe reap what it has sown. And then one thinks of Hamas and how they ban the Khaffiyeh. Will Hamas save us from the European? Who is worse, the Hamas activist or his European female European collaborator? Who is worse: the terrorist or his excuser, his lover, those who call his act ‘resistance’? The terrorist is honest. The European is not. The European needlessly spits on the graves of the dead and offends the victims, wearing its khaffiyeh into the offices of terror victims, enjoying tea at elitist coffee shops and looking down on average people. Hamas doesn’t spit on the grave of the terror victim. Hamas can be relied on for its hate and one can fight Hamas with a closed fist. But how does one fight the European and his support of terrorism and the fact that he comes to every country in the world and exploits democracy in order to fan the flames of terrorism and ethnic hatred and nationalism? How does one fight him? Hamas knows how. We could learn much from Hamas. The European loves Hamas. If we can become like Hamas will the European love us? If not at least we can deal with the European the way Hamas has: remove the khaffiyeh and interrogate and expel them, tell the European once and for all: stay home and stop coming to our countries and trampling on the graves of our dead. You Europeans caused enough bloodshed, enough genocides: the world has had enough. Luckily leftist Europeans have few children and their continent is being slowly made more and more poor through the immigrants in Europe: soon they will decline and be poor and suffer terror and ethnic and religious strife.

Why the women leaveDecember 16th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

Philipino maids throw themselves off balconies in Lebanon. Canadian nurses are beheaded in Saudi Arabia. British ‘cocktail waitresses’ are murdered in Japan. American college students are murdered in Italy. Women from Moldova are ‘tricked’ into becoming sex slaves in Macedonia, forced to clean toilets with their tongues, and then released from imprisonment when they get AIDs. In Haifa women have sex with forty men a night ‘to feed their children’. What is wrong with women in our world? Why is it that our world, our modern world, is a brutal place where women are raped, murdered, disappeared and turned into slaves by the millions? In Somalia they rape teenage girls and then accuse them of ‘adultery’ and bury them up to their necks and stone them to death. What is most fascinating about all this is that it is women in some cases who make the choices to engage in these activities or at the very least trust some advertisement to be a ‘dancer’ or ‘nurse’ in some country where the first step on their ‘journey to work’ is to give away their passport to some man and then be ‘smuggled’ by other men who then rape them. No matter, they follow their fate.

Why is it that the modern world, with its secularism and education is primarily responsible for creating slavery and slavery entirely among the female half of secular societies. Its an interesting side of women’s ‘liberation’ and freedom that guarantees that within ten or fifty years of giving women equal rights one will find, as they have found in the Philippines, that something like 20% of the women in the country have simply disappeared and gone abroad, never to return. They are working as nurses or caretakers or prostitutes throughout the world. Not only do they never return, none of them seek to marry Phillipino men, they disappear into the meat grinder of poverty and nothingness of a brutal secular world. Where have all the women gone in the Ukraine or Moldova? They are ‘working’ as prostitutes in Prague or Macedonia or Amsterdam, on display in some window to be bought and sold by men. The most beautiful make their male pimps the most money until they have become ‘old and loose’ and then they are tossed aside, with any number of drug problems and STDs, into some trash heap.

It doesn’t happen to men. Men don’t sell themselves into slavery. Men don’t end up locked in houses in Lebanon, throwing themselves out windows to escape. Men don’t allow themselves to be sold as slaves, raped and put on display in some window like an animal. So why does secularism lead to the dehumanization of women? Why does ‘equal rights’ lead to a society without women with the women sold into some brothel somewhere with no rights? Why is it that in nations where rights are granted to women, when there is even the slightest economic downturn, the women sell themselves on ‘Russian brides’ websites and marry foreign men and immediately leave their countries, converting to whatever religion they can find so as to leave behind the country and the nation and the heritage that granted them equality? Why is it that the freedom granted women in Russia led to most of them coming to places like Israel and marrying Bedouin men in polygamous marriages, converting to Islam, having 13 children and covering themselves up. They wouldn't have had 13 children with a Russian man. They wouldn’t have covered themselves up modestly for a Russian man. They wouldn't have allowed a Russian man to lock them inside all day so he could enjoy other women. But they will do it for whatever man comes along who isn’t Russian or Orthodox Christian. That is the message of secularism, so far as women are concerned: slavery and abandonment of the society that grants the freedom.

There was a time in society, when people were religious, when women had a role in the family and in the religion and in conveying traditions to the young. There was a time when women committed suicide after seeing their men sold into slavery after defeat in battle. There was a time when women wept for the men in their society and supported them in times of war and economic hardship. But secularism guarantees, because it produces a society of irresponsible men who spend more time picking out their metrosexual jeans and watching porn then paying attention to their women, that the women have no interest in the society that grants them freedom and equality. It is almost unheard of to see women nationalists and right wing women in a democratic secular society. Women are always, in a secular liberal society, at the forefront of movements to help ‘the other’ and bring Shariah law or some other hateful law of inequality into society. Why is that? Why is it that women in the free society can always be counted on to support those religions and laws that grant less freedom to women? Why is it that women judges can always be counted on to give light prison sentences to rapists whereas male judges give harsher ones? One finds that whatever is the culture in society that treats women the worst this will be the culture considered the most ‘exotic’ and most ‘romantic’ by women in a secular society.

While women will be the first ones in the secular society to want to ‘push the bounds’ of society by being nude in operas and plays and protesting nude or being photographed nude, the same women will inevitably cover their hair and act modestly and quietly for whatever immigrant minority religion demands that of them. While women will fight for abortion in their secular society one finds that those same women, once they have discovered Islam, will have 13 children.

This is the paradox of freedom for women. Societies that grant women freedom do not find that women like that society any longer. Religions that grant women equality will find that women no longer want to worship that religion. Take Christianity, that religion where gays are ordained in Europe and women are priests. But how many women are proud Christians in Europe? How many women take enjoyment in reading the Bible? But give them a Koran and they will be exploring the Sunna and the Hadith and pronouncing Al Khalil correctly and letting the word “Mohammed” role off their lips like they are post-coital. Why?

Is the problem a problem that is central to women, the natural love of enslavement and being second class citizens, or is it a problem of secular democracy, granting people freedom leads them to take it for granted and they come to have contempt for what they are familiar with, or is it a problem with men, men become increasingly fat and weak in a wealthy secular democracy, exposed to ‘perfect’ women in porn and magazine covers they no longer value their ‘normal’ women, they become irresponsible because of the ease of abortion, having no honour for women, deserting pregnant women and expecting women to be single mothers while men live a life of irresponsibility and childishness, drowning themselves in impotent drug use, drunkeness and games of foolishness.

It is all three. Women have an innate and strange and twisted desire to be abused, dominated, told what to do and degraded. In the West we speak of women entering a ‘vicious cycle of bad relationships’ but this disguises the truth; these women in these ‘abusive relationships’ desire this abuse, just as prostitutes may use the excuse of being ‘abused by my dad’ but in truth they have sought out this lifestyle and while not enjoying it have played a great part in wanting to be it, just as strippers and porn stars are mostly middle class and choose to become what they are. Secularism is a diseased system that decays the moral and spiritual qualities of people, forcing them eventually to hate secularism and love its destruction, or at the very least not want to defend it. Worst of all are the men of the west, a primarily weak and pathetic gathering of metrosexual flabbiness, fat, weak, skinny beyond normality, overly enjoying childish games, rarely growing up and never having any interest in the women in their society.

The three go hand in hand. Women, who out of a sense of wanting to be honoured, degrade themselves out of the false premise that men who abuse them, rape them or lock them up ‘love them’, secularism gives people no structure in an ‘anything goes’ society, and the men become fat, impotent and weak, increasingly incapable of raising their fists to do anything and unwilling to chase their women in a manner that shows the women they are actually wanted and desired by their men. Lack of any religion or faith or decency or tradition and heritage adds to the illness of the society and produces generations of women who fall prey to enslavement and who flee their countries for opportunities (after all secularism and capitalism value ‘opportunity) abroad, the men flee too, there are Spanish and Australian towns where all the men have simply left for work in America or the UAE. Men without the strictures of religion have no interest in the future and have no interest in children, a thing they view as a burden to their fun loving life. It is an ill society, truly sick, where the men and the women have a mutual dislike for one another to the extent that the women sell themselves into slavery and the men become bisexual, such is their love for themselves and their male bodies.

Europe and the concept of JusticeDecember 25th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

Another day, another murderer freed in Europe. In European countries a ‘life sentence’ is between 15-22 years. Hardly a year goes by without another terrorist or former Nazi being released due to ‘old age’ or because they are ‘no longer a threat to society.’ The latest murderer to be freed was Christian Klar, a German who has served 26 years of his ‘life sentence’. He is 55 years old. Klar was arrested in 1982 as a member of the Red Army Faction or Baader-Mienhof gang which murdered 34 high profile German businessmen and politicians. Klar took the lives of three people; Hans-Martin Schleyer, Siegfried Buback and Jurgen Punto. These three men were murdered because the communist ideology and youthful leftist extremism of Klar and his bourgeoisie leftist friends led them to take the lives of those they saw as ‘capitalists’. The German leftists of the Red Army Faction also participated in the hijacking of the Air France jet to Entebbe that was subsequently freed by the Israelis. During that hijacking the German leftists and their Arab Muslim allies separated the Jewish passengers from the non-Jewish ones.

Klar took the lives of three men. Some of them were about the same age he is now. He took there lives for no reason. They had done nothing wrong and yet Klar believed he had the ‘right’ to take their lives. Yet no one, especially not the state it seems, has the right to take the life of Klar. His ‘life sentence’ is hardly that. He murdered three people and denied them the right to live their lives and denied their families the ability to say goodbye or see these three men again. Yet Klar will see his family and even have the chance to raise children and love and be loved. He took all that three men ever had and all they would ever have, but he receives everything from society. Society in Europe and the European sense of ‘justice’ is the reason that the life of the murderer is full and free and the life of the victim is worth nothing.

Why is it that justice has become perverted in this matter. People have come to believe that prison serves only as a place to keep ‘dangerous’ people away from society. Once these people are ‘rehabilitated’ or old or ‘no longer a threat’ or they ‘show remorse’ they are allowed to go free. But why are murderers who planned their murder and killed again and again allowed to go free. One can understand that some people murder others accidentally in an act of rage. Those people, while taking a life, may deserve rehabilitation and a second chance. But when someone stalks other people, kidnaps them and murders them and then does it again and again how can that person and how can justice be served by freeing them.

The justice system, particularly in Europe, is not about punishment any longer. It is not about taking away the freedom of someone who denied others their freedom. Instead it is so brutally pragmatic and cold that it simply seeks to remove the threatening person from society until that person is considered no longer a threat. But this is a brutal way to serve justice for it does not justice to the people whose lives were taken. They are not entered into the equation. This is a significant problem. A Nazi can take the lives of tens of thousands at a camp he is in charge of. He can torture and rape and do all manner of evil unspeakable things. And yet when he reaches the age of 80 because of his ‘old age’ he is allowed to leave prison and enjoy his last years in comfort. But his victims received no comfort. They died cold and alone. They were murdered senselessly and without reason. They were brutally tortured and worked to death. But the ‘old’ Nazi gets to visit his family and smile and enjoy the holidays. He denied others lives and family and holidays but he receives it all in the name of a ‘justice’ system that seeks merely to protect society from threats and not punish those who threaten others.

It is a very strange world to know that a person who murdered senselessly can sit on a bus next to you and he can chat and smile.

A society that abandons the concept of revenge and retribution in its justice system loses the concept of justice. Prison is not simply a place to put people who are dangerous and who interrupt society's norms. It is also a place to punish people. In a society that finds the death penalty immoral he least we can do is keep murderers in prison for the rest of their lives. They denied life. There is no reason that they should be allowed to have life.

1) An Anthropology of Anthropologists: Anthropologists enjoy sitting at dinner parties and condemning other cultures and unique people’s, saying that their best traditions are myth and that they are a ‘kin-group’ or ‘imagined community’ and not a people. But one should analyze anthropology the way it so arrogantly analyzes humanity. Is anthropology not a ‘clan’ with its own ‘cultic site’ and its own ‘altar’ that it bows down to, its own ‘creation myth’. Anthropologists deserved to be poked and prodded and their cherished myths subjected to the same rigorous ‘science’ as they direct at others.

2) Thailand’s Democracy problem: and the problem for all democracies: The takeover of the airports in Thailand and the banning of the ruling party to placate the street, alongside the riots in Greece, show an incredible chink in the armor of democracy. It cannot defend itself against violent street riots by small minorities, who are able to hijack governments and use the media to appear that they are the majority. The people who vote, the majority, those who pay their taxes demand that the police do something, and demand their property be protected, otherwise they too should form gangs and run these lazy violent youth off the streets. But that last option is not very democratic.

3) Obscured Evil: The problem with modernity: One of the great hallmarks of modernity is not only that it obscures a cesspool beneath its own ivory towers, but that it also obscures evil in history. One of the greatest test cases is to read accounts of slavery written in the 1860s by American southerners (who believed slavery was a normal part of life) and by academics today. One finds incredible similarity. The obscuring of evil, the inability to condemn it is part of the post-modern culture. Whereas our proud ancestors fought slavery, their descendants white wash it. Obscured evil is a hallmark of a dying society, once one ignores evil it means they accept it.

Anthropology is an infuriating subject. It is like arguing with those who accuse people of being alcoholics. When one replies “I am not a drunk” the response is “you are in denial.” I have seen it again and again in life. There is some person from some unique culture and opposite them is some arrogant bespeckled western leftist intellectual saying “research has shown that you do this in your culture and that your prayer is stolen from so and so and your historic roots are actually in this place and not the place you say.” And I’ve seen the bewildered look on the face of the human, surprised to be told by someone he thought was his fellow man that in fact this ‘anthropologist’ is above him and capable of telling his own history to him. In the old days when man had honour he might challenge the weak ‘anthropologist’ to a duel for having insulted his culture, but instead we are trained today to accept such hateful dehumanizing criticism as part of ‘science’ and ‘intellectual’ life. Anthropology places itself above humanity and thus a human does not feel capable of arguing with it because it has pretensions to be a ‘science’ based on ‘research.’ But Anthropologists are also human. So if they are human than surely we can apply anthropology to them and we can stand above them and see their way of life. Think of anthropologists like a tribe. They are not naked and half-starved children are not suckling on their breasts in the midst of some swamp, but they are a tribal people. They have a culture and a way of life. They have families. They give birth. They have a cultic center and a religion.

How does an Anthropologist band (a small group of related people, who are primarily organized through family bonds. Foraging typifies the subsistence technology. A respected and older person may be looked to for leadership, but the person has no formalized authority) or clan (a noncorporate descent group in which genealogical links to a common ancestor are assumed but are not actually known) survive? It has elders in the form of ‘scholars’ and ‘research’ which is passed down from generation to generation. Anthropology’s mythological source is actually to be found in the Muslim world where they claim descent from Abu Rayhan Biruni. It emerges from the shadows of history in the British empire of the 19th century. Later it was adopted by intellectuals of the Southern Aristocracy to support the “natural state of the Negro in slavery.” Fredrick Douglas replied in 1854 that “The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered," Douglass argued that "by making the enslaved a character fit only for slavery, [slaveowners] excuse themselves for refusing to make the slave a freeman.... For let it be once granted that the human race are of multitudinous origin, naturally different in their moral, physical, and intellectual capacities... a chance is left for slavery, as a necessary institution.... There is no doubt that Messrs. Nott, Glidden [authors of Types of Mankind], Morton, Smith and Agassiz were duly consulted by our slavery propagating statesmen." Later Anthropology was a keystone of Nazism and part of their cultic belief system that theorized that Jews and slavs were sub-human. The Nazi obsession with anthropology was such that they even searched for their ancestors in Tibet and collected Jewish relics of destroyed communities in order to preserve the history of the people they were so proud at having destroyed. So Anthropology has a beautiful pedigree: Islamism, Slavery and Nazism.

Anthropology was involved with a coevolution (the joint evolution of two or more systems that interact with each other) with the enlightenment. It is predicated on the colonization (forced change in which one culture, society, or nation dominates another) of native peoples in the sense that it believes its ideas about culture are correct and it thus imposes them on others. IAnthropologists like to study the coperiphery (the structural relation between centralized core, often an urban area, and communities on the periphery, usually tribal or rural, resource-based communities) but usually reside in urban bourgouise communities. Its culture (the learned patterns of behavior and thought that help a group adapt to it's surroundings) is one of wealth and arrogance. Its curer (a specialist who heals with herbal preparations and magic learned through apprenticeships) is called a doctor. Anthropologists engage in a cyclical migration (the annual pattern followed in the production of food) to posh ethnic restaurants at noon time where they sit with other members of their economic group and talk about other peoples.

What marks the anthropologist is his view of the world. He has a unique view whereby he categorizes other people according to his own views of them and disregards their own views of themselves. He creates mythological histories of peoples and call its ‘science’. He creates names for things that already have names, such as turning ‘tribe’ into ‘kin group’ and then he creates complicated definitions of those names that have no basis in reality. The anthropologist has an arrogant speech pattern when speaking about others and he enjoys observing other ‘cultures’ but he believes he is above that culture and thus has a right to observe it. An Anthropologist has no heritage or history of his own but in his belief system he exists above humanity, judging and classifying it as he sees fit. There may be some ancient decent tribe of people living on their own and the anthropologist believes that he has the right to go observe them, interview them and then decide to call their religion a ‘cult’ and describe their lifestyle in some complicated ‘scientific’ manner, turning their unique rituals into something base and turning their language and culture and speech and habit and traditions into simply classified things devoid of meaning or color. All this in the name of the anthropologists ‘science’.

Anthropology and its arrogance stands at the height of the evil side of western civilization. Western civilization claims to free man of many things, specifically savage superstitions. It claims reason and ‘enlightenment’ can free man. But it also creates new disciplines, such as anthropology, that take man and re-enslave him. Thus some poor decent person living in some decent and honourable lifestyle in some place such as India or Africa stops being a human in the eyes of the ‘scientific’ western civilization and instead becomes a thing to be poked and prodded. This poor person’s marriage becomes some ‘kin ceremony’ and his love for his brothers become part of some elaborate ‘kin-group’ that is demeaned and made fun of. His religion, his love for his land, his love for many things, are degraded. His heritage is said to be a ‘myth’. His love for his people and his language are all re-classified so that those tribes he considers his enemies are said to be his source and languages that he can speak are classified as separate while those he cannot understand are described as being the same as his.

Science is a satanic force in the hand of Anthropology for it denies man his soul, his history, his religion, his land, his source, his roots. Everything is cast aside by the idol smashing anthropologist. The anthropologist, a child of the west, has no history or identity, he has cannibalized his own, so he believes that to take revenge on the world for having vomited him out he must take away the traditions of others and tell them that their most cherished ways of life are nothing but superstition and hocus-pocus.

We must always question what ‘science’ tells us. Science tells us it has some logic to it. It tells us that it is superior to belief because it has some ‘method’. But if it has a method how can it come up with myths that are as complicated and far-fetched as any myth found in the Bible. ‘Research’ tells us the Jews are variously believing in a religion created in Mesopotamia or connected to a god in Egypt worshipped long ago by a cult. ‘Research’ condemns the Ethiopian Jews as the product of Christian missionaries and damns their ethnicity as something from Yemen, then twists history once more to create some myth about them being connected to Coptic Christians. ‘Research’ turns Santa Klaus into a pagan god or new years into a pagan holiday. It turns Greeks into slavs and claims Hindi is a ‘made up language’ and that the Japanese are based on a ‘modern myth’. ‘Research’ tells us the Bedouin ‘tribe’ is not a real entity but a ‘kin network’ that is an ‘imagined community’. ‘Research’ goes so far, thus, to even tell people “our research has shown that you do not exist.”

But what if we were to shatter this lie and ask if anthropology exists. What is the proof that it exists? Its origins are as convoluted and obscure as any Bedouin tribe. Anthropologists want to call Bedouin tribes ‘kin-groups’. But what is a research method if not a religious tradition of a secular society? What is science but a name for a new belief system created by man, one as convoluted and full of ridiculous myths as any religion. What is a college degree if not another right of passage akin to some Sun Dance of the Sioux? What is an anthropologist if not a modern day Shaman, weaving tales of history and myth into narratives? We know the source of anthropology. We know how it was harnessed to imperialism and to justify slavery and then Nazism. Now it is harnessed to secularism and used to declare man dead and his traditions dead.

But will anthropology prevail in the contest over man’s soul? It tries very hard. It tries to seduce us with claims to have ‘researched’ something and it drops names, saying things like “Dr. so and so has shown in his research that ….” But is that more powerful than some native Siberian Shaman sacrificing a goat and smearing its blood on the wall to determine the future? There is a story in the Bible in 1 Kings 18 of the time when Jezebel was hunting down the prophets of Israel to exterminate them. Elijah emerged from his cave to confront the prophets of the Baal. He was confronted 450 of them and asked that they sacrifice a bull and he would also and they would see whose god would respond. The prophets of the Baal cried out from morning until noon and danced by their altar. Elijah asked “cry out in a loud voice, for he is a god! Perhaps he is conversing or pursuing his enemies or relieving himself, or asleep.” So the prophets of the Baal whipped themselves and cut themselves with swords and stabbed eachother with spears “according to their custom.” We know how the story ends. Elijah, after preparing carefully is answered by a fire from the heavens which consumes his offering. How did Elijah deal with the prophets of the Baal? “he took them down to the Kishon Brook and slaughtered them there.” This was surely a different time than today. But the war between humanity and anthropology is no less important. For humanity to exist anthropology cannot. Anthropology demeans society and denies heritage, it kills the spirit, shackles the mind and numbs the soul. It whips and stabs and lacerates humanity in order scourge it because anthropologists are themselves a people without a past, each one a blank slate seeking to make others that way.

Tribal peoples should rise up against anthropology and throw off its chains. They do not deserve to be studied, anymore than anthropologists would invite some savage tribesmen from the Kalahari into his home to study him, anymore than we would welcome Siberian Shamans to come to our university and study us. When someone cites anthropological ‘research’ as evidence of something they must be asked immediately, ‘what is your kin group’, where is your ‘band’, what is your ‘cultic cite’? Is it not the toilet you squat on so forcefully in the morning? Is that not your altar? How do we know it is not. Perhaps you bow down before it and wash your face in the toilet bowl and splash yourself in your own filth in the morning? What is this thing called “research.” Is it your ‘myth’, your ‘ancestor-tale’? Tell us more, anthropologist, tell us how you have sex with your wife at night and about your kin group, tell us about your rituals? Those who demean culture and murder heritage must themselves be examined, poked and prodded, put in cages and have their speech recorded, as was done to the last Native-American, Ishi. Their words should be deconstructed so we may understand their belief system and we should look on their ideas as the monkeys did the ideas of the man in Planet of the Apes.

Anthropology will die out along with the rest of the western system of education. It will be forgotten and its myths and fables buried under the sands of time. It will vanish. If our culture cannot defeat it than at least Islam will defeat it. There is no anthropology among Muslims. There is none among Religious Jews. There is none among the Sikhs. There is non among the BJP. There is none among all the religious people in the world who love their heritage. Heritage cannot go hand in hand with a science that denies humanity’s basic rights to its own history. Mussolini declared a ‘battle against Economics,’ a nonsensical battle that cannot be won because economics is a fact. But Anthropology is a myth. We must wage a battle against anthropology, for it is a system of thought which hates us and our way of life.

Never allow a person to speak of anthropology in front of you for its source is Nazism and we would not let someone readily tell us about some Nazi research that has shown we are ‘sub-human’. Nor should we allow some person to interpret our culture to us. We, and I mean all the unique peoples in the world, are our culture and no one can tell us its history or its traditions, for culture and heritage and history are the most sacred elements of humanity. No leftist westerner with his science can strip humanity of them. But we can strip the west of its hateful sciences, those with origins in slavery and Nazism, those used to justify genocide and those that demean people, degrade them and in a racist and arrogant manner pretend that one man can judge the accuracy of another man’s history and lineage and tradition.

Thailand’s Democracy problem: and the problem for all democraciesDecember 10th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

Images from Thailand recently have shown un-ending protests culminating in them seizing airports and shutting down the country. But for Thais this has been only a slight break from the normal course of events that have seen protesters shutting down the capital at their whim for years.

Thailand’s current ‘crises’ stretches back to at least 2001 when Thaksin Shinawatra was elected Prime Minister of the country. He had come from a middle class background with Chinese (rather than Thai) ancestry on his father’s side. He attended school at a military prep academy and entered the police forces as a young man before becoming one of the countries most successful and wealthiest businessman. Following in the mold of other successful rich men turned politicians, such as Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi or Israel’s Nir Barkat, he formed his own political party, Thai Rak Thai, and formed his fist government in 2001.

He soon made it clear that he would not behave like former politicians in this Southeast Asian country. He tackled the drug problem in a harsh and successful way. He fought a true War on Drugs, resulting in the killing by police of, some have claimed, 2,275 people, mostly drug sellers and makers and thugs involved in the drug trade. He wiped out entire sectors of drug use, including the use and sale of Meth. Success brought the usual suspects of the international human rights mafia and its ill tanned men from Europe to ‘investigate’. Amnesty International and its legion of shrill female complainers along with Human Rights Watch condemned Shinowatra for cracking down on drugs. Human Rights Watch called him a “human rights abuser of the worst kind.”

Thaksin was known to be undiplomatic with some of his neighbours and international organizations. He dared to thumb his nose at the UN and ASEAN, at one prestigious conference he was accused of not adhering to protocol and showing the proper respect to the Malaysian head of state. Thaksin distaste for the Malaysian regime stemmed from two problems. First his knowledge of Malaysia ‘Malays first’ policy where the Chinese minority in Malaysia is denied education and government jobs so that the majority Malay population can have them and because of the long running anti-Buddhist killings carried out by Malay Muslim terrorists in Southern Thailand. Due to the last ‘insurgency’ that began around 2001, probably inspired by the ‘success’ of Bin Laden, some 3,000 people were killed in Southern Thailand by Muslim terrorists.

But Thaksin’s trouble came when he somehow alienated Bangkok’s elites and middle class. His party had always received most of its votes from the rural poor, especially in northern Thailand. He had enacted various schemes to bring them out of poverty and provide health care to them. Many of them were angered due to years of neglect and having to watch their sons and daughters get swallowed up by the faceless urban environments that turned the sons into day labourers and the women into sex slaves for the European tourists and elites. Thaksin was their saviour. Beginning in 2005 under the pretext of opposing corruption a motley group of protestors that included students, militant Buddhist societies, royalits, right wing vigilantes and others popped up to oppose the government. This ‘People’s Alliance of Democracy’ provided non-stop protests that resulted in a coup in 2006 led by a Muslim general and supported by the King. The Generals governed until February of 2008 when new elections brought the People’s Power Party into power. Thaksin had been in exile and his party had been declared illegal but it had re-formed itself under this new name and was once again elected. The response of the urban youth and their allies was to begin protesting again with the claim that the king must support a new coup or all the streets and services in the capital would be blocked. The way of the protestors is not peaceful but violent and the army is unwilling to intervene, apparently because it too dislikes the democratically elected government.

Here we see in Thailand a case where democracy has failed. The people have been asked again and again to elect the party they choose since 2001 and since 2005 the urban elites, students and monks and leftists and other radicals, apparently because they are wealthy and do not have to work, have simply made it impossible for normal life to continue in the capital. The army has refused to intervene and the police are incapable of controlling the crowds or suppressing the protests.

This is where democracy fails. One does not need a minority of 45% to make governing by the 55% impossible. One only needs the 10-15% who reside in the largest city, the elites who know how to use violence, intimidation and street protests, and human rights organizations, in order to make life impossible. The police in all countries prove entirely inadequate in controlling even small crowds of rioters. One need only recall the ‘intifada’ in Paris in 2005, the riots in Greece in December 2008 or any other riot. The police are unable to defeat rioters and police tactics do not train them to defeat them. Police tactics are never such that the police succeed in protecting businesses or keeping the streets open and the people safe. The police only succeed in skirmishing with the rioters. And this is the problem with democracy. When a small group is dedicated to not respecting democracy that group can make elections seem illegitimate through mass protests. In many places this has led to new elections simply because some 10% have been able to hijack entire countries, and usually it is the urban leftist educated 10%, not the people who actually vote.

To surrender to the politics of the street is the weakness of democracy. It means the majority is rarely respected if the minority knows how to use the protest, the human rights movement and other forms of intimidation. This is why, at some level, there must be a mechanism to remove protestors once and for all, jail them en masse, beat them, terrorize them, do whatever it takes to stop them from corrupting democracy and hijacking it to their narrow wishes. One method of doing this is an American Style election which happens at a set time every 2 or 4 years. This way there can be decision to ‘call new elections’ because that would be unconstitutional. The protestor may whine and complain but he will not get his new elections. The government remains in place. Secondly the protester cannot be allowed to invade and shut down airports and main thoroughfares. These are the public’s property and must be defended from protestors the way one defends property: arrest and if necessary shoot.

The idea of a protest is something that appeals to those wishing to subvert democracy. It is part of the ‘pressure’ group mentality where some tiny minority can have its way with government and because of the use of the media and the collaboration of ‘human rights’ groups it is given legitimacy because it is seen to represent the majority by virtue of the fact that we are exposed to it so much on television and in the press.

The actions by lunatic protestors in Greece and Thailand remind democracies that they must train the police better to deal with the people when the people break the law. The fact that the police are incapable of protecting private business is a problem because it means that the protestors is allowed to destroy private property. When the police do not defend private property than the people must and that means the people must be willing to fight the protestor in the same way the protestor fights. The people must be willing to go to the wealthy gated community or the hippie commune from whence the protestor springs, to his anarchist apartment, and burn that apartment, burn his car, destroy his motorcycle, hit him in his property. Spray paint his house, tear down his extremist signs. The protestor always is able to run loose in the city, whatever day it is he has a new cause that he exploits and uses violence against the property of others. The protestor is a thug and a terrorist, a natural bully who works in crowds and assaults and intimidates the majority. But the majority should not be silent. There is no excuse for having ‘youths’ running the streets burning cars and businesses and invading airports. Beat them mercilessly. As Stalin said “Beat, beat and beat again.” Or as Yitzhak Rabin said “Break their bones.” Beating is not enough, the police are capable and do it enough and it is not effective at stopping the abuse of the streets by the ‘youths’. This is why they need to be completely cleared from the streets as one fights a war in an urban environment: street by street, block by block. They need to be curfewed and when that doesn’t work they need to be arrested en masse and transported a distance of a hundred miles to some rural location and unloaded in a football field and kept there until they can be processed and given the harshest prison terms possible on such charges as ‘disturbing the peace’ and ‘loitering’ and ‘blocking public street’, ‘vandalism’, ‘protesting without a permit’ and such things. ‘Youths’ feel a mandate to do as they please because they do not have jobs and because there is no punishment, they believe that there is ‘safety in numbers’ because ‘who would arrest all of us.’ The police need to think outside the box on this and arrest them all. Thousands, tens of thousands. Whatever it takes to put a stop to lawlessness and the destruction of property.

Protesting is a legal part of democracy. But taking over streets and airports, smashing cars and burning businesses is not. Spraypainting people’s doors is not. Paralyzing a city is not. Those last things are part of terrorism and the destruction of democracy, they are the prelude to coups and civil wars. Democracy must defend itself with a strong hand, otherwise it dies the lonely death that we have seen in Thailand.

History will judge us harshly. It will not judge us merely on our failure but it will judge on our ability to obscure evil, our use of intellectualism and the predilection among the best and the brightest to obscure evil and fabricate history. Our inability to judge which is passed of as an interest in not judging and thus not being 'racist' in fact hides a deeper and more disturbing reality, the tragedy of modernity and its inability to process and judge and value things, particularly its inability to condemn evil, whether it is evil in our midst or evil in the past. It is a failure for which modernity will pay the ultimate price and be smashed on the rocks of history.

Societies that sanctioned evil were still able to judge, in our view they just judged wrong. Nazism did not shy from judgment and neither does modern day Islamism. They both understood evil, even though they themselves are it. But modern society does not even rise to the simple level of the Nazi or the Islamist for he cannot even judge. Whereas the Nazi and the Islamist judge incorrectly, modern intellectuals simply do not judge, which means they are in fact worse.

Take two simple examples. The medias reaction to the recent Mumbai attacks, the media's callous treatment of the victims, the media's unwillingness to name who carried out the attacks and the media' prevarication in noting who the attacks were against. Each time the media lied the media murdered he victims again.

The second example is modern societies treatment of slavery, particularly slavery as was found in the Middle East not so long ago. Society denies the slave his right to a heritage, his name, his right to have a mother and a father, his justice, and sees the slave as a 'commercial unit' much as he was seen by his masters and abductors. This enslaves the slave twice, murdering his history twice, for it was first done by the actual people who enslaved him or her against their will, but it is done again by the Western historian in his ivory tower.

History will judge us harshly and rightly so because it will see that we had access to so much information and yet we knowingly obscured that information in order to lie to ourselves about things that were blatantly obvious. A society that does not do justice to the victims of slavery and terrorism, it is as if the society itself is responsible for terrorism and slavery. It is an accomplice. Our modern secular society is an accomplice in more ways than one. In some cases our democratic secular 'progressive' way of life allows for slavery to take place under our very noses in the form of trafficking in women, a crime whose perpetrators receive little punishment primarily due to the female feminist judges who re-label such things 'sex work' and turn the slave sellers into 'business owners'. I don't blame Islam for hating our way of life, it is a way of life that is objectionable and deserves exactly what it gets, it is not worth saving or defending. Any society that can turn terrorists in 'militants' and whose elite media dares to ask whether the targets of the terror were "strategic or by mistake" deserves what it gets.

William Hopworth Dixon, a man used to understanding of the role of slavery in the American South, in the 1860s described a scene in Jaffa: "Said is a Nubian, a Negro, and a slave, and like the mule and the horses, is the property of an Arab gentleman."

"In the nineteenth century, there was growing demand for slaves in the OttomanEmpire, particularly during the middle third of the century. Commercial prosperitystimulated demand for Africans – from the Sudan, Senegal, Ethiopia and parts ofeastern and south-eastern Africa – and from the Caucasus and central Asia. They werebrought to slave markets in cities, of note Cairo, Istanbul and Bursa, and sold to workas urban domestics, in municipal services, in industry, and in other dangerous anddisdained occupations. Some were kept in harems as slave-girls or concubines. Aswell, slaves were used to work on farms and as sharecroppers. Sarah La Preta was brought as a young girl to Jerusalem around 1880. She was a slave who endured the difficulties of travel from her native Ethiopia to be sold in Jerusalem’s market…. As a slave, there are no official records of her birth." Lets tell the truth. She didn't "endure", she was "forced to endure." She doesn't lack "official records" of her birth, her records exist in Ethiopia the place she should have grown up and lived a free life. The place she should have enjoyed playing as a child instead of being raped by Muslim Arabs and put in chains and forced to march through the desert. Forced to be stolen and abducted from her parents by a pedophile religion of hate and transported illegally across the sea to be sold as an object, her humanity denied again and again. Her family surely recalled her birth. She had a name given to her by them. No one gave these animals, these beasts, the right to sell a human being. Slaves were not "used to work", they were "forced to work." But the West obscures and prevaricates. The West lies and lies and lies again in order not to judge, in order to enslave our minds to this mindless life of non-judgment and ridiculous sensitivity to 'racism'. But who is the greater racist, the liberal-secular western person who obscures the life of an African slave and turns her into chattel, or the person who tells the truth about the Muslim role in the African slave trade. Who is the greater racist, the liberal-secular media who refuses to admit that it was Jews, Hindus and westerners who were targeted and murdered in Mumbai, or the person who tells the truth about terror and names who the terrorists are; Muslim terrorists?

We cannot abide such a world. Liberalism and secularism promised us many things and in each thing it was a lie. Each 'freedom' became a slavery, each secular promise to free us from the chains of religion brought new religions with new chains to whip and murder us, each time we were told we would be freed by some new leftist ideology such as Communism we found that leftist intellectuals came and set taskmasters upon us in the name of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But there was no proletariat, there was just the Soviet-Bolshevik elite, born of wealth who continued their bourgouise leftist lifestyle while man was re-enslaved. Each time we were told 'now we will do justice to occupied voices and colonized peoples' we found that the truth was obscured, in the name of anti-colonialism Robert Mugabes arose and new colonialism had to be imposed to bring out men such as Charles Taylor, good people like Rose Kabuye were arrested under arrest warrants issued by the International Court, a court with no jurisdiction that Rwanda never allowed to have power over her citizens. Each time we found that 'never again' meant 'do it again'. Each time we found that slavery was not abolished but only changing in form as we watched millions of women from the Former Soviet Union sold as chattel across the world, raped for the enjoyment of men and murdered.

We ask. When will it be enough? When will we stop submitting to this charade. When will slavery start being slavery again? When will terrorism become terrorism? When will peace stop meaning war? When will justice stop meaning genocide? When will human rights stop meaning hatred for humans? When. Will we have to extricate ourselves from the diseased western civilization and allow it to die so that we may live again free from its shackles?

1) How one becomes disillusioned with the West: Western Civilization and the Europeanism it has produced becomes less and less palatable everyday. When one see the constant march of Islam, the constant love for the minaret, the growing distance between the EU and the people who reject it, the arrogance, the NGOs, the International Criminal Court and its abductions, and the thriving sex slave trade, one becomes less and less clear that there is much to save in Europe. Perhaps Vaclav Klaus can provide us a gem of hope.

2) The war in Afghanistan is not going wellA recent attack at a supply depot in Pakistan, destroying 160 American vehicles, reminds one of other attacks on supply depots that heralded negative things for Afghanistan. Nato may be in trouble.

3) Coming to a neighborhood near you: the war on women A recent column by Nocolas Kristoff noted that in Southeast Asia there is a problem of men throwing acid in the face of women. The names of the victims and perpetrators, Aisha, Hassan, Ahmed, seem to point to one group of people. It reminds us of the case in Jordan this month where a man got 6 months for murdering his sister, or that fact that the 9th female member of a family in Ramla has been murdered, or all the other evil ways in which Islam wages a war on women.

4) A great and unfortunate injustice: Ethiopian Jews and the European claim of Israeli 'apartheid' (With illustrative Photo): Israeli apartheid is a strange kind, it is one practiced by a diverse nation against a mostly homogenous one. But what is most ironic is to see White European protestors in East Jerusalem from the ‘World Council of Churches’ confronting a black Ethiopian Border Policeman on behalf of a pasty faced white Arab woman and accusing him of practicing Apartheid. If Apartheid could mean separating the world’s decent people from the likes of Islamists and human rights activists and members of leftist church groups who preach hate, then that’s an Apartheid we could be proud of.

How one becomes disillusioned with the WestSeth J. FrantzmanDecember 7th, 2008

William Pfaff may have been born in America but his culture, and his name, is European. He resides in Paris, home of all those intellectually and culturally exiled from the U.S. In an oped in the New York Times on December 4th, 2008 he writes that “Are we witnessing an indiscriminate war between civilizations? But we know that the modern conflict between Muslims and Europeans and Americans began with…Israel’s European-supported installation in Palestine.” Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth is the author of Israel and the Clash of Civilizations. He is a frequent contributor to the leftist Guardian and Observer as well as Le Monde and The Herald Tribune. In his book, written from a European mindset, he argues that “From the early 1980s, it was Israeli policy to subdue the Palestinians, fragment Arab rivals, and foster ethnic and religious discord to maintain unchallengeable regional dominance.” In it he also claims that the aim of Israel and its western allies, whose foreign policy it controls according to the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, is “curbing and crushing (Arab and Iranian) nationalism that might inspire Middle Eastern states" to claim the right to their own resources and deny the West their benefits.” For Cook, And most leftist Europeans, “today, Hezbollah is a legitimate political and social organization that maintains a military wing for self-defense.” For the European, Cook, Israel turns “a ‘clash of civilizations’ into an added Sunni-Shia struggle and risks making an unstable situation worse? Many Middle Eastern states are ‘uncomfortable amalgams of Sunni and Shia populations’ because they were combined into unnatural states post-WW I.” But Cook shows that the grand plan of the Jews, or as he terms them ‘Israel’ is even greater; “encourage discord and feuding within nations, destabilize them, and arrange their dismemberment into mini-states. Tribes and sectarian elements could be turned on each other, and alliances with non-Arab, non-Muslim groups like Christians, Kurds and Druze could be cultivated to advantage.” In addition the Jews have their sites set on China and “containing China by controlling its main oil source; it may also be easier to dismember the country the way the Soviet Union was dissolved.” In addition “Serbian, Ukrainian and Georgian ‘pro-democracy’ groups [will] incite political instability in Moscow.” (quotes courtesy Stephen Lendman). The goal of Israel and her U.S controlled allies is “as in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, it's to create ethnic tensions throughout the country, promote conflict, and hope it will destabilize the government” This all courtesy of a leftist ‘progressive’ website called ‘countercurrents.org.’

But the European goes further. He supports Hizbullah, claiming “How is it ‘perfectly clear; to Bouckaert [a Human Rights Watch spokesman] that Hizbullah was ‘directly’ targeting Israeli civilians? It is most certainly not clear from the casualty figures…What I did try to alert readers to was the fact that many, if not most, of those military sites are located next to or inside Israeli communities, including Arab towns and villages.” Cook claims that Hizbullah targeted only military targets during its war with Israel and that since its ordinance is inaccurate it is not its fault that some civilians died.” This is the European view, published on the website of the ‘Electronic Intifada’ on September 7th, 2006 by a European born journalist, born in Buckinghamshire who received a B.A from Southampton and an M.A from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. This is the face of the European today.

There was a time in life when people were told to learn something from the European and his enlightenment and his feminism and secularism and progressive ideology, his human rights and his gay rights. But what can the world learn from a people who so callously condemn innocent people to death? What can one say to a people, an entire continent of them, who blame a small country, Israel, for their problems and for the world’s problems, when just 60 years ago they were busy putting the ancestors of people from that country in gas chambers? How can one countenance the European and his arrogance and his belief that he alone can be host to the U.N and the International Criminal Court? How was he able to, after claiming to have de-colonized, to re-colonize the world through his ‘human rights’ and his ‘democracy’. Remember democracy? What democracy? We have seen the outcome of European democracy throughout the world, it is no different than the outcome of European democracy in the 1920s: hate and fascism, genocide and ethnic-cleansing.

There is a general disillusionment with democracy among the peoples of the world. From Thailand to Russia we see that the average people are not enthralled with democracy and its guarantee of self-hatred and the mass prostitution and enslavement, and sale, of women that follows in its footsteps. We see a general revival of religion throughout the world from Turkey to Israel, the U.S and India. What is more we see that secularism does not guarantee the human rights it claims to. In Europe, in its most liberal cities such as Amsterdam, we see that the trade in sex-slavery is thriving. This is the most brutal form of human rights abuse and has no parallel in the world, the chaining of women to beds, forcing them to have sex with dozens of men a day, selling them, branding them with tattoos (as in a recent case of prostitutes liberated from a Turkish owned brothel in Holland). This trade goes on under liberalism and is, in fact, the product of a liberal progressive society in which ‘anything goes’. It is the same European society that produces the shows on Fashion TV that we are forced to watch where women from the most ‘progressive’ European countries are transformed into human clothes hangers in a culture where ‘freedom’ guarantees that women wish to be objects, moving back and forth on a ‘runway’ for the edification of men. Such is a ‘progressive’ society: slavery and the dehumanization of women.

There is a general disgustingness about Europe, the feeling that the entire continent is pretty on the outside but disgusting and dirty underneath. Scratch the surface and one finds slavery, pornography (few convenience stores in England don’t stock less than fifty porn magazines), restive and savage immigrant populations breeding hatred, Islamism, shariah law, racism, and evil. Secularism is largely a failure. The washing away of heritage and religion is only temporary, it is quickly filled with new fake heritages and religions, new hateful ideologies. Diversity and multi-culturalism is a scam, it serves to encourage radicalism and at the same time to strip decent minority groups of their heritage, creating more blank slates of people with no heritage. Survey Sikh women in Europe and see how many know their religion or heritage? Few. See how many are willing to convert to Islam and one will find that the majority will say yes. The others are already dating atheist European white men. It is no surprise most Hindu and Sikh men wish to return to India to find a wife, who would want women born in a European society and raised to worship Fashion TV, in a society where one cannot walk down a street without seeing the discarded business-card advertisements for brothels with ‘Polish supermodels’. Such is ‘European civilization’. Who would want it? Football hooligans are condemned but their behavior is only the outcome of a society that offers no pillars in terms of faith or heritage, young men need something to believe in and for them their ‘religion’ becomes some football team and their ‘heritage’ becomes its record of winning and losing.

There is a growing disconnect between Europeanism, what it sees as an inevitable march of history towards a society increasingly ruled by secular ‘believe in nothing’ white haired men and the thriving trade in women, guns, humans and drugs of the society beneath them. The EU marches on and every time its treaties are rejected by referendum the EU simply tries to negate the people’s will. The EU will be imposed on an unwilling Europe the way the UN and the ICC was imposed on a world that never wanted it. The EU will colonize Europe and its remaining traditions and cultures and indigenous peoples the way the UN has colonized portions of the world. We can see the EU’s increasing arrogance even today with the revulsion it has for Vaclav Klaus, a former dissident, now president of Czechoslovakia and avid campaigner against the rising dictatorship of the EU and lonely dissident against the Climate Change Mafia.

But let us allow Klaus and the ancestor of his ideas, Fredrick Von Hayek, speak for themselves. In a speech in August of 2005 entitled ‘the Intellectuals and Socialism as seen from a post-communist country situated in predominantly post-democratic Europe.’Hayek described ‘intellectuals’ as “the professional second-hand dealers in ideas…[not] possessing special knowledge of anything in particular…[with no] direct responsibility for practical affairs…[need not] even be particularly intelligent…the power of ideas [of intellectuals] grows in proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness” The Klaus corollary is “They prefer ideas, which give them jobs and income and which enhance their power and prestige…They look for ideas, which enhance the role of the state because the state is usually their main employer, sponsor or donator…They are not good at details. They do not have ambitions to solve a problem.” Klaus notes that the modern EU model “as we see both in Europe and in America, the intellectuals love such a system. It gives them money and an easy life…I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism…I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.” (http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=wFYl3mgsTzI6)

Klaus is prescient. He is not alone. Throughout Europe there are still people who yearn to be free of the chains of liberalism. There are those who want to take up the burden in the clash of civilizations rather than denying, as Pfaff does, its existence, or blaming it, as Cook, does on Israel. There are people in Europe who believe in local heritage and religion. They are few.

The war in Afghanistan is not going wellSeth J. FrantzmanDecember 9th, 2008

On August 11th, 1988 a soviet munitions dump was blown up in Afghanistan, killing 500 people. The destruction of the dump was the result of rocket fire from Afghan rebels, the same rebels who are the ancestors of today’s Taliban. In February of 1989 the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. In April of 1992 the Communist government of the country was overthrown by a coalition of rebels that included Islamists and the Northern Alliance of Ahmad Shah Masod (mostly Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazars) In 1999 three arms dumps in Kabul exploded mysteriously, the last in June of that year. By the end of 2000 the Taliban controlled 95% of Afghanistan.

On December 7th, 2008 some 160 Nato vehicles were torched in northwestern Pakistan after their car park was raided by the Taliban. The Pakistani security guards and police tasked with guarding the site didn’t put up much of a fight apparently. Two separate sites were attacked, the Portward terminal and Al-Faisal depot, and numerous humvees were among the vehicles destroyed. The successful attack, the inability of Nato to secure its supply lines and the unwillingness of the Pakistanis to stand and fight shows the degree to which the Nato fight in Afghanistan is going the way of previous failures by the Soviets and the Northern Alliance.

Coming to a neighborhood near you: the war on womenSeth J. FrantzmanDecember 1st, 2008

From Afghanistan to Cambodia they throw acid in their faces when they are not modest enough. In Saudi Arabia they gang rape women and then courts order those women whipped for committing ‘adultery’. In Jordan when a woman is murdered and the man says he did it to defend his family’s honour then he gets only 6 months in prison. In Somalia when teenage girls are raped she is buried up to her neck in a football stadium and stoned to death by a crowd of ‘brave’ men because she has committed ‘adultery’.

And in England when a husband beats his wife they go to a Shariah court and the judges urge her to give him a second chance.

Its coming to a community near you. Friendly, neighborhood Islam and its treatment of women. You can’t wait to feel its tolerance and coexistence that it brings. You can’t wait for your daughter to date one so she can be beaten, raped, stoned, whipped and have acid thrown in her face. Tolerance. Coexistence. Diversity. Multi-culturalism. Post-modernism. Globalization. Immigration. Secularism. Modernity. Europeanism. The UN. Liberal-leftism. Intellectuals. Its all coming and its bringing friendly neighborhood Islam and its treatment of women.

Can it be called a religion? Why is it that in every Muslim country the role of the man is to beat his wife, to throw acid in women’s faces, bury teenagers up to their necks and stone them, shoot women in the back of the head in front of crowds at football stadiums and hang them. What kind of a world is it where it is called a ‘religion’ when the male sex, the one endowed with strength, uses that strength to beat little girls, beat their wives and disfigure the faces of women by acid, and murder their own sisters to protect their ‘honour’. What honour is this? What kind of men are these? What kind of culture and religion is this?

And yet we must live with it. This thing that exists in this world next to us, this plague that exists in this world, this thing that turns the world black, that clothes women in black to symbolize the blackness of the world that it creates. How do we coexist with it which beats those that are weak, which disfigures them, which strangles young sisters, which whips women, which stones young girls and rapes them. Lest we forget the case in Pakistan where a man raped a women and the ‘justice’ was for his sister to be raped. This is this thing. Do we live with it? Or do we struggle against it with every ounce that is left in our body? Do we accept it? Do we do what the English have done and invite its laws into our court rooms and allow its judges to settle domestic violence cases? Furthermore why do our women collaborate with it? Why is it always our women who love Islam the most and romanticize it and love to look at pictures of its slave markets and its harems and talk about its culture and its ‘equality’? Why? Why do we live in such a world?

A great and unfortunate injustice: Ethiopian Jews and the European claim of Israeli 'apartheid'November 20th, 2008Seth J. Frantzman

As sad, inconsistent, anti-Semitic and degrading as the claim of Israel being a 'Nazi' state is, it is perhaps more tragic that recently it has been joined with the chorus of European and western voices describing Israel as an apartheid state. It has become more fashionable in the West to describe Israel as an Apartheid state as people have begun to realize that a direct comparison of Israel and Nazi Germany, as UN Human Rights Council special investigator Richard Falk once did, is going out of fashion. When Shimon Peres paid a state visit to England in November of 2008 he came in for a barrage of assaults by protestors. An 'action alert' at the Global BDS (Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment) movement called for protesting Peres because; "Beginning with his role in arranging for the weapons that were used to forcibly expel over 750,000 indigenous Palestinian refugees in the 1948 war, Peres has committed the past sixty years to the policies of apartheid and aggression that characterize Israel."

The way in which the 'Apartheid' allegation works is three fold. First it hinges on the claim that Jews are a minority within 'Palestine', which includes non-occupied Gaza, and thus are not giving over to majority rule. This is based on the idea that since Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in Israeli elections, even though in Gaza's case they are not administered by Israel, they are thus disenfranchised, and the situation is undemocratic. Secondly it hinges on the idea that a two-state solution and the separation fence is ipso-facto a form of 'separation' and thus 'apartheid', which means 'separateness', because two peoples are being separated. Thirdly it hinges on the idea that idea that Jews are 'white' while Palestinians are 'black.

While people may focus on the technicalities of the first two claims it is the third claim that actually results in the emotional connection westerners are able to draw with apartheid. Apartheid could only be seen as apartheid because it was so blatantly obvious in South Africa that the separation of peoples was predicated on skin color. In order to make the Jews 'white' and a 'European colony' those who speak of apartheid try to reinforce their claims by describing Palestinians as 'indigenous' and Israeli Jews as 'European immigrants.'

This leaves a great and tragic irony. There are more than a hundred thousand Ethiopian Jews today in Israel. They exist in all walks of life and throughout the towns and villages of the country. One poignant picture this author recalls taking is of an Ethiopian Jew working in the Border Police in Arab East Jerusalem. He is confronting an Arab woman and there are two members of the World Council of Churches, supporters of Palestinians, standing nearby speaking about Israeli 'apartheid'. But it is the black man asking the white Arab woman for her documentation to pass that puts to shame this allegation. If Israel is an apartheid state it surely is an odd form of Apartheid where black and white Jews, Sephardim and Russians, Indian and Mexican Jews, Arab Druze and Arab Bedouin of all colors and faiths work together and serve together and have equal rights. It is a tragic irony that Europeans and Western anti-Israel protestors call this 'apartheid.' They who did not help the Ethiopian Jews when those Jews were starving and dying in the 1980s. And yet they claim that Israel is an 'apartheid' state. Nothing could be more ironic and nothing can be more hurtful towards Ethiopian Jews who have suddenly, after 2,500 years of being in exile in Africa and suffering discrimination are being told they are 'white' just so that Palestinians can be labeled 'black'.